What Greenland’s Future Tells Us About U.S. Foreign Policy

When President-elect Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, the world laughed it off as yet another over-the-top idea. But fast-forward to today, and the Arctic has become a geopolitical goldmine. Melting ice sheets, while an environmental tragedy, are revealing untapped mineral resources, from rare earth metals to oil, and opening up lucrative shipping routes that could slash global transport times. The Arctic is now a strategic chessboard, and Greenland—strategically perched at its center—is the queen piece.

For the United States, the stakes in Greenland couldn’t be higher. Trump’s revival of expansionist rhetoric, as highlighted in his recent Gulf of America address, may sound like a relic of the 19th century, but it signals the broader reality of America’s Arctic ambitions. As Russia and China ramp up their investments in the region, the U.S. cannot afford to remain a passive observer. Yet, as Greenland inches closer to independence from Denmark, America faces a pivotal question: Should it seek dominance in the Arctic through financial coercion or collaboration?

Greenland is more than just a landmass of ice and rock. Its mineral-rich terrain holds some of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth metals—critical for technologies from smartphones to renewable energy. With climate change accelerating Arctic ice melt, the territory has also become a hotspot for global shipping routes that could reduce transit times between Asia and Europe by 40%.

But for Greenlanders, the lure of these riches comes with existential questions. Currently, Denmark provides 500 million euros annually in subsidies, accounting for 20% of Greenland’s budget. As independence becomes more plausible, Greenland must fill that financial gap. This has made Greenland open to partnerships, particularly with the U.S., which already maintains its Thule Air Base on the island, a strategic asset given Russia’s and China’s growing Arctic presence.

Historically, the United States has wielded investments in resource-rich regions as tools of influence, often blurring the line between partnership and control. In Greenland, Washington’s interests bear an uncanny resemblance to this familiar pattern: substantial funding tied to control over lucrative mineral rights and strategic defense locations. Without its own military, Greenland relies on external powers like the U.S. for security—a dependence that frequently comes with hidden costs.

President-elect Trump’s proposition to outright buy Greenland may have been dismissed as absurd by both Greenlandic and Danish authorities. However, Trump’s ostensible overreach might serve as a precursor to a subtler but equally consequential strategy. Having rejected the purchase proposal, Greenlandic officials may feel compelled to entertain more "palatable" offers—U.S. investments targeting Greenland’s burgeoning industries such as mineral extraction, defense infrastructure, and tourism. But a closer look at Washington’s track record in similar arrangements, particularly in the developing world, should raise alarms. These deals have historically led to the erosion of sovereignty, with host nations losing control over their mineral wealth and strategic defense assets.

For Greenland, the stakes go beyond securing independence from Denmark. The real challenge lies in safeguarding this newfound autonomy from being compromised by economic reliance on a new benefactor. While U.S. investments might address Greenland’s immediate fiscal challenges—such as reducing its dependency on Denmark’s annual subsidies—such financial inflows could also come with heavy strings attached. Surrendering control over critical resources or defense decisions would jeopardize the very independence Greenland seeks to achieve. As Greenland navigates this pivotal moment, it must tread carefully. Accepting external investments without safeguarding its national interests risks turning one dependency into another—a shift that would undermine the very essence of self-determination.

The U.S. must tread carefully in Greenland, prioritizing collaboration over exploitation. Unlike past interventions in the developing world, a neo-colonial approach would alienate Greenland’s 56,000 residents and strain relations with Denmark. Instead, America should focus on building trust by supporting Greenland’s self-sufficiency. Investments in local education, sustainable infrastructure, and environmental preservation would demonstrate a genuine commitment to the Arctic’s long-term stability, while also supporting the United States’ strategic military presence in the region.

More importantly, Greenland offers the U.S. a chance to prove that its foreign policy can evolve. In a world increasingly skeptical of American hegemony, a cooperative approach in Greenland could redefine the U.S.’ role as a global partner rather than a resource-hungry superpower.

If the U.S. fails to act wisely, it risks ceding influence in the Arctic to rivals like China and Russia, who are aggressively courting smaller nations with offers of debt-financed infrastructure. Greenland’s independence—likely within the next two decades—will mark a turning point in the geopolitics of the Arctic. The U.S. must decide whether it wants to lead in shaping the region’s future or be sidelined by its competitors.

The Arctic is melting faster than anyone imagined. With it comes not just mineral wealth but also profound questions about sovereignty, climate responsibility, and the ethics of 21st-century geopolitics. Greenland might not be for sale, but the window to secure its trust is closing.

The next chapter of U.S. foreign policy is being written on a frozen island. Let’s ensure it’s one of partnership, not plunder.

Lindani Zungu is the founder and leader of Voices of Mzansi.